Letter from Thomas Y. How to Joseph Caldwell, December 27, 1796
:Electronic Edition.How, Thomas Y.Funding from the University Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill supported the electronic publication of this title.Text scanned (OCR) byBrian DietzImages scanned byBari HelmsText encoded byAmanda PageFirst Edition, 2005ca. 18KThe University Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill, North Carolina2005

University of North Carolina Papers (#40005), University Archives,
University of North Carolina at Chapel HillLetter from Thomas Y. How to Joseph Caldwell,
December 27, 1796Thos. Y. How.5 pages, 6 page images1796Call number 40005 (University Archives, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

The electronic edition is a part of the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill digital library, Documenting the American South.

The text has been encoded using the recommendations for Level 5 of the TEI in
Libraries Guidelines.

Originals are in the University Archives, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.

Original grammar, punctuation, and spelling have been preserved.

DocSouth staff created a 600 dpi uncompressed TIFF file for each image. The TIFF images were then saved as JPEG images at 100 dpi for web access.

Page images can be viewed and compared in parallel with the text.

Any hyphens occurring in line breaks have been removed, and the trailing part of
a word has been joined to the preceding line.

All quotation marks, em dashes and ampersand have been transcribed as entity
references.

All double right and left quotation marks are encoded as ".

All single right and left quotation marks are encoded as '.

All em dashes are encoded as —.

Indentation in lines has not been preserved.

Text transcription of this document was produced by OCR (optical character
recognition) from R. D. W. Connor's A Documentary History of the University of
North Carolina 1776-1799 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press,
1953), Vol. II, p. 113-116. Used by permission of the publisher
(www.uncpress.unc.edu).

Page images were made from the original manuscript held in University Archives,
Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Connor's
transcription was compared against the original document and in the case of any
discrepancy we have been faithful to the original.

English Any special keywords assigned for this project 2005-06-15,Amanda Pagefinished TEI/XML encoding.
Letter from Thomas Y. How to Joseph Caldwell, December 27, 1796
Princeton December 27th 17[96] Dear Sir:

I received your agreeable letter on [the] 18thInst, and proceed with pleasure to fulfil the agreem[ent] which we made when
you left this place for North Car[olina.] A literary correspondence between two persons
engaged [in the] pursuit of science can not fail, if properly conducted, to ly entertaining and instructive. And, I confess, when [I
he]ard of your intention to forsake Princeton, the pain [felt] at the
idea of parting with an old friend, was alleviated by the
reflection that I should de[rive] improvement and pleasure from your letters.
This [is not] the language of flattery. It is not a compliment [of] course. It
is what I really think and feel.

Your letter contains an account of a conversation with Gener[al Da]vie on
the evidence of Christianity. The manner in which [you] reasoned with him was
very judicious and forcible. [I hope] it will prompt him to enquire with
accuracy into the subj[ect.] The progress of Deism in the Southern States is a
most aing and melancholy circumstance, and it is the du[ty
of] every friend to virtue to exert himself with incessant
in opposing a system that will corrupt our morals and our
liberty. The general prevalence of Atheism and Deis[m] among a people is a sure
mark of a corrupted state of soci[ety.][Wh]en men
are extremely addicted to soft and luxurious plea[sures] they soon become
Infidels, in order to remove every obstacle [to the g]ratification of their
passions. And as soon as religion is open[ly and] generally ridiculed, Society
will go to decay with incredible ty. The Romans, in the pure
times of the republic, were re[mark]able for a most sacred attention to their
religion and an in[torn]ble regard for their oaths— But when the
violence of fac had destroyed their morals, and the Asiatic
wars by ac[quain]ting them with the riches of the East, had introduced lux[uries] and rendered them extravagantly fond of
effeminating [pleas]ures, the doctrines of an overruling providence, and of a
state of rewards and punishments soon gave way the [At]heism and the mortality of the Soul. After it became
[the gen]eral belief that there is no invisible Judge of our actions [and no]
existence beyond the grave, the Roman manners hasten[ed to] that state of
profligacy and debauchery which we rea[d of in] the time of Cicero. And,
how could it be otherwise? Man [is na]turally prone to the gratification of his
passions. Take [from] them the powerful restraints which are imposed by the fear
[of futu]re punishment, and what is there to curb his irregular [appe]tites and
desires! The sanguinary monsters that have de[luged] France with blood, in order to prepare the
people for the [comm]ission of every crime, and thereby carry their nefarious
[purpos]es into execution, wrote over the burying
grounds "This place of eternal
sleep." It had the desired effect. It [a]way all
restraint upon the vicious passions of the heart.
Frenchmen to commit the most horrid crimes without remorse or fear. You will perhaps stare when I advance [the] firm opinion that
the government of France
has sent e[missa]ries to this country for the express purpose of converting th[e
peop]le to Deism. And, why! Because our people will in case
soon lose their republican virtue, and France will by intrigues and bribery to govern our politics.

I promised occasionally to give you accounts of the proceedings of the Society,
and as something interesting has lately happened, the remainder of this letter
[will] be occupied in relating it to you. Towards the close of las[t ses]sion
two parties began to be formed. At the beginning of th[e ses]sion, several of
the members predicted that we should [be] torn by faction. An event soon
happened which divided [the] Society and fixed the parties in battle array
against [one] another. John and William Alston
brothers of Josep[h Al] ston, John Forsyth and Frederick Nash were
propose[d for] admission. The request of John Alston came on first,
wh Class unanimously declared him to be a bad scholar
unworthy of a seat. The proposal for his admission
[was] then withdrawn, as was also that for the admission [of his] brother. The
request of John Forsyth was next consider[ed] when four persons
Bailey, Peyton, Jackson and
Alsto[n evi]dently actuated by motives of revenge, spoke
agains[t him.] This brought on a very lengthy and interesting debate. [The]
evidence of the Class and of the oldest members was highly
in Forsyth's favor. We at length prevailed upon
[Jack]son to withdraw his opposition, and upon Bailey
and Pey[ton to leave] the room. The question was then taken, and no
person in opposition but the infamous Alston. I never was more ed than on this occasion. I had
formed a very good [opinio]n of John Forsyth's disposition and
capacity, and the that he should be kept out by two such
contemptible as Alston and
Jackson filled me with indignation. [I can] not describe to you my
feelings when after a long an ated discussion, the cause of
truth and justice pre[vai]led. But what followed was very mortifying. As soon
proposal for Nash's admission was read, Alston an[d
Jack]son declared they would oppose him, and nothing that said had any influence upon them. The pro[posa]l was
withdrawn. The next evening it was again [broug]ht forward, when the rascals did
not say decidedly [whet]her they would continue their opposition or not.
[Fri]ends of order resolved, during the week, if the opposi[tion] should be
continued, to endeavor to suspend Alston from [the] Society. The
opposition was continued notwithstanding [the u]nanimous testimony of the Class,
and notwithstanding [a] letter from Hobart declaring MrNash to be a
good [scho]lar and a worthy student. Upon this John Watson walked solemnly to the Table, and wrote a proposal [for]
the suspension of Alston. This brought on a very debate which ended in the appointment of a [com]mittee to consider the
proposal, and to report whe[ther] or not it ought to be adopted. The Committee
reported [that] the proposal was unconstitutional, Mr. Alston being
[a me]mber of the Counsel, and the Constitution declaring tha[t "no of
]ficer shall be impeached or censured, while in the execution of the duties of
his office under penalty of very severe punishment." The
Constitutionality of the proposal was of course the first subject of enquiry. We
contended both from the Spirit and letter of the law, that an Officer is
protected from censure and punishment, while in theexecution of the duties of his office, only for his conduct as an Officer.That the object of the Constitution, in specifically
providing for the censure and impeachment of Officers, is to punish them for the
neglect or transgression of those duties which as
Officers they are required to perform. We observed that the construction
for which the Committee contended is opposed by the immemorial and daily
practice of the Society, the Censor, Correctors and all the officers censured and punished as well as the other members, [for]
the neglect of their exercises, or for any indecencies during the time of order.
The vote was at last taken when 15 declared the proposal to be illegal, and 26
declared it to be strictly constitutional. Then came on the main question. The
evidence being taken, both sides prepared for the combat. A number of long
speeches were made. Hobart delivered the most eloquent speech that
I ever heard in the Whig Hall. Mercer and Watson also
spoke well. On the other side
Bailey
fatigued us with a long speech, and Otto the slave of popularity spoke several times. At length, between the hours
of 2 and 3 in the morning the question was taken, when 20 voted against and 21
in favor of the suspension. So we carried our point by a majority of one vote.
Six graduates were present— Hobart, Forsyth,
Comfort, John Smith, Stille and
myself—We all voted for the proposal. Some of the members are much
exasperated at us and threaten to deprive us of the privilege of
voting—But this they dare not attempt.